Buy the 7600k goy

>Buy the 7600k goy
>exact same as the 7700k but $100 cheaper. EXACT
>what is hyperthreading and simutanious multi-threading, even?
>you don't need any of that. 4 simple cores. don't consider Ryzen, either
>you can just overclock the 7600k and it'll be better than the locked, stock 7700 can ever be!
>yes yes, pay $150 for that motherboard and $150 for that cooler, it'll definitely be better than a 4c/8t then.
>you can just upgrade to a 7700k later when games REALLY use hyperthreaded, because I swear most games don't now. no no, it won't cost $400 again like the 4790k.

Is this just a ploy for regulars on Sup Forums to see people come back after a few years, pissed off at how much money they spent on their computer with it then running shit for them and being a stuttering mess?
It seems like it'd be too long of a wait before it pays off, in most cases, before people realize how they got scammed.

Not reading your dumb thread, gamer kid.
But they're not the same. The i7 has more cache. Sure, -you- don't use hyperthreading right now. I glanced at your idea to upgrade to the 7700k despite downplaying its value. What the fuck. Shut up. There'll be a new intel generation in a year. Good luck selling a 7600k in favour of a 7700k.

>stuttering mess
The fuck are you talking about? The 2500k came out six years ago and hasn't made any game a "stuttering mess"

>he doesn't know what implying is

>he thinks his 2500k is good enough for 120fps minimum in modern games and that it doesn't suck ass in multitasking and productive workloads

The last few weeks have been pretty eye opening for me. I too, used to think than an i5 was good enough. I'd look at all these GPU bound benchmarks showing identical performance between an i7 and an i5 and say "Yup, good enough".

Remember the old adage about SLI and crossfire scaling being shit and not the same as double the performance. Pump the resolution up to 4K and you can see 90-100% scaling for both AMD and Nvidia in many titles.

Of course, this revelation happens when everyone is doing their damndest to kill multiGPU off.

SLI and CF can both scale very well now days. I actually had no idea the 1080 could scale quite as well as +90% like CF, I thought it was usually close to 80%.

The problem is that when it doesn't, it's just like having one card when you paid for 2.

In my experience though, most games that actually require multiGPU to run well, even at 4K, support it. Games that don't tend to run just fine on a powerful single GPU.

That said I had more issues when I used Crossfire since driver updates for multiGPU support were a lot slower than they have been with Nvidia SLI.

>complaining about getting 120fps

This is why you can't get good advice from pc gamers.
>If you're not playing games in 4k at 300fps you've wasted your money

Fuck off, I just want to be able to play games in 1080p and get around 60fps. You autistic faggots need to calm down.

Your argument is invalid only reason why people buy 7600K is it's better value so they don't get Jewed as hard sure the 7700K is better but not $200 better the idea is to put the extra money you saved into a better graphics card which does = more FPS

>In my experience though, most games that actually require multiGPU to run well, even at 4K, support it. Games that don't tend to run just fine on a powerful single GPU.
Eh.. not really.

There's lots of games that never intended to run at 4k. Lots of console ports. Games that could look nice in 4K, but can't run well enough at that resolution nor support CF/SLI.

>$400 vs $500 for mobo+cpu+cooler
>the $400 one has only far less than 20% lower performance.
>better value!!!!
you're retarded.

My argument is not valid, you're simply too stupid to understand it despite it being clear as can be. You're too stupid to see that 152 is much higher than 123, or that 120 is higher than 90, or that 100 is higher than 80.
Especially if you're on a high refresh rate monitor, which you should be if you're spending at least $400 on cpu+motherboard+cooler to begin with.

>150 for that cooler
nigger what?

>desktop processor sales slipping
>kikes are this desperate

>400 vs 500
nope the 7600K is $200 cheaper where I live you don't seem to understand the concept of value and that most people still game at 1080p where the CPU is less likely to be a bottleneck and don't go full retard on their builds.

oh man, no wonder my k/d is slipping, can't get solid headshots without a locked 144fps.
Oh snap I forgot we are all using 1080ti and 144hz displays.
ivy 5 still doing 2560x1600 at 60fps vsync no prob, a clocked 2500k would prob be about the same

You're the one that doesn't understand the concept of value.

If your total system cost is $1200 equivolent with a 7600k, then still adding a 7700k for $200 instead makes it 30-50% better in most cases for only 20% more money.

For most people it's more like a 10% difference for 30-50%, and even better.

>ivy 5 still doing 2560x1600 at 60fps vsync no prob, a clocked 2500k would prob be about the same
By that argument, most people should get a G4560, which I agree with.
I just disagree that anyone should get a 7600k as it's the worst value for the money, and everyone should agree with that too if they knew what they were talking about.

lel, if your gonna spend that much money on a CPU just get Ryzen

>not just using a 6700k

That's a much better idea than a 7600k, too.
Can get them for cheaper, don't need to delid, still 97% as good.

But I was specifically pointing out how horrible of an idea it is to think you're going to overclock a 7600k to 4.8ghz and get 7700k, or 6700k performance for that matter, for cheaper. That's not the case, but people think that and shill those lies all the time on here.

You could also simply get a locked 7700 for $210-$260. It will outperform a 4.8ghz 7600k on most games just like how the stock 7700k outperforms the 4.8ghz 7600k in DigitalFoundry's test.

Yeah, or get Ryzen.

But it's hard to argue with Israelis that act victimized at every turn for you not helping them fill their quotas.
It's easier to at least sell them on getting a 6700k or 7700 that outperforms the price-performance of the i5s by a huge amount, than to sell them on changing brands.

I don't care if people are going to be brand loyal, but if they are they should at least get the best price-performance for their needs out from that brand which means never getting an i5.

>1080p
>less likely to be a bottleneck
What the fuck?

Not even a 1080 is generally powerful enough to leave the CPU as the bottleneck with a 7700.
The 1080Ti can make it the bottleneck at 1080p maxed in just a handful of games.

chill dude, we are all used to the i5 x600k being close to the x700k in gaming, kaby changed that.

stop being mad you got shafted by the intel hivemind.

>kaby changed that.
No it didn't. The 3770k is better than the 7600k.

Crossfire is fine buy SLI microstutters like hell

Those average framerates don't tell you the story. Look at frametimes and you'll see that SLI 100fps is often an inferior experience to single card 60fps

>believes this

>posts fucking synthetic benchmark based almost purely on L2 cache.
>believes that
I've seen a lot of stupid posts today, but I think you've made the stupidest.

Why does Intel sell a CPU for $250 in 2017 that's worse than a CPU from 2011 and 2012 that cost like $300 new then?

Tell me again why I need an i7 7700?

Because you only have 4 threads and it's worse than the 2600k.
Stop running babby applications.

Why does Intel sell a CPU for $250 in 2017 that's worse than a CPU from 2014 that cost like $350 new then, even when it's overclocked the 4.7ghz and the 4790k was only 4.0/4.4Ghz stock?

Why does Intel sell a CPU for $250 in 2017 that's worse than a 3.4/3.8Ghz from 2011 that cost $310 new then?

Those min frames are sad. I thought the 7600k is a cpu for gaymers?

Why does the $250 CPU keep getting beaten by a CPU from 6 years ago that only cost $50 more?

I thought technology is supposed to get better and cheaper every year. My new phone from this year is 4 times faster than my one from 3 years ago, and cost the same. It's not slower.

Why does Intel sell a CPU for $250 in 2017 that's worse than a CPU from 2014 that cost like $350 new then, even when it's overclocked to 4.7ghz and the 4790k was only 4.0/4.4Ghz stock?

>having no chill
>not realizing I linked to a 3770k vs 7700k because you were busy proving yourself right and coming up with ebin comeback (upboated btw)
>found and snipped a pic to make your point
>being this much of a fiddle

I didn't bother to even look at the CPU there because CPU-Z is the most worthless "test".
There's no comparison to the 7700k there either, when this is clearly about 4c/4t being shit.

Sorry tho'? It's not my fault you used greentext wrong.

Selling a CPU? Are you retarded? You can use a CPU for 6-7 years and then you just chuck it away to buy a new one.

ryzen doesn't have this problem